EMET vs. GNR

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

EMET (VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF) and GNR (SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMET is a Copper fund tracking the MVIS Global Clean-Tech Metals Index, while GNR is a Natural Resources fund tracking the S&P Global Natural Resources Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMET returned 16.69%/yr vs 12.21%/yr for GNR. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMET charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GNR.

Performance

EMET vs. GNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) and SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMET achieves a 7.69% return, which is significantly lower than GNR's 9.29% return.

EMET

• 1D: -3.53%
• 1M: -9.09%
• YTD: 7.69%
• 6M: 6.80%
• 1Y: 77.20%
• 3Y*: 16.69%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GNR

• 1D: -1.42%
• 1M: -7.95%
• YTD: 9.29%
• 6M: 8.87%
• 1Y: 28.04%
• 3Y*: 12.21%
• 5Y*: 8.45%
• 10Y*: 10.15%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMET vs. GNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	7.69%	81.22%	-12.81%	-12.28%	-17.15%	0.11%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	9.29%	28.68%	-8.27%	2.95%	10.20%	2.61%

Correlation

The correlation between EMET and GNR is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 11, 2021	0.79

The correlation between EMET and GNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMET vs. GNR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EMET

EMET Risk / Return Rank: 64
EMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
EMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
EMET Omega Ratio Rank: 61
EMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
EMET Martin Ratio Rank: 61

GNR

GNR Risk / Return Rank: 56
GNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
GNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
GNR Omega Ratio Rank: 50
GNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
GNR Martin Ratio Rank: 68

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

EMET vs. GNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) and SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	EMET	GNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.02	1.62	+0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.43	2.16	+0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.29	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.03	2.68	+0.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.69	11.29	-1.60

EMET vs. GNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMET Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is comparable to the GNR Sharpe Ratio of 1.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMET and GNR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EMET vs. GNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMET drawdown since its inception was -53.05%, roughly equal to the maximum GNR drawdown of -51.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMET and GNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMET	GNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.05%	-51.37%	-1.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.58%	-10.50%	-15.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-40.50%	-21.15%	-19.35%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.66%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-48.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.38%	-10.50%	-7.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.65%	-14.92%	-9.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.00%	2.49%	+5.51%

Volatility

EMET vs. GNR - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) has a higher volatility of 15.96% compared to SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) at 6.04%. This indicates that EMET's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMET	GNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.96%	6.04%	+9.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.78%	14.18%	+19.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	38.42%	17.38%	+21.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	33.40%	20.28%	+13.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.40%	21.82%	+11.58%

EMET vs. GNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMET has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than GNR's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMET vs. GNR - Dividend Comparison

EMET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%, less than GNR's 2.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	1.71%	1.84%	1.89%	2.02%	2.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	2.71%	2.76%	4.73%	3.37%	4.37%	3.44%	2.78%	3.84%	3.51%	2.40%	2.06%	4.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMET and GNR in my portfolio?

EMET and GNR have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMET or GNR?

EMET has higher volatility (15.96%) compared to GNR (6.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMET dropped -53.05% vs GNR's -51.37%.

Which ETF is better, EMET or GNR?

On 3-year performance, EMET leads with 16.69% vs 12.21% for GNR. On fees, GNR is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, GNR has been the lower-risk option at 6.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMET or GNR?

Over the 3-year period, EMET has performed better with a 16.69% return vs 12.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMET or GNR?

GNR is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for EMET.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMET or GNR?

GNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.71%, compared with 1.71% for EMET.

What is the main difference between EMET and GNR?

EMET is categorized as Copper, while GNR is Natural Resources. EMET tracks MVIS Global Clean-Tech Metals Index, while GNR tracks S&P Global Natural Resources Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for EMET and 0.40% for GNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 vs 1.62), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.